Politics, Development and Corruption

San Diego residents are not happy that Mayor Sanders has two faces: With one, he says they need to use less; with the other, he approves new construction and development.

I've pointed out that Sanders (and other politicians) have an incentive to approve more construction because it brings development fees and a larger tax base to the city. On a more "personal" level, developers also like to give campaign contributions and other goodies to politicians who help them make oodles of money on the difference between "raw" and "cooked" land.*

Anyway, someone drew my attention to a blatant version of developer corruption, i.e., the case of the Madigans. Mike lobbied for developers; Laurie approved developments for the city. Their careers are one big conflict of interest.

How can it be that they got away with it for so long? How can it be that they blatantly failed to do the right thing?

The latter question will be resolved in a discussion with St. Peter (All Saints Day!). The only answer to the former question is that the Madigan's overseers and superiors were either blundering idiots, in on the same game, or [insert amazing reason here].

Bottom Line: Before you vote, consider the politician's record of representing the people.** After you vote, watch 'em carefully -- and keep a sharp pitchfork around.

* Not so much with the current housing slump!
** Keating Five and Troopergate versus nothing and "the poorest man in the Senate"?

hattip to anon from SD